United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT CHRISTINE ANDERSON
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment as to Defendant Christine Anderson. (Doc. 45.)
Plaintiffs served their motion on Defendant Anderson by mail
at Defendant Anderson's last known address. (Id.
at 3.) This service was effective under Fed.R.Civ.P.
5(b)(2)(C). Alternatively, service was effective under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(D), by “leaving” the motion
with the Clerk which occurred upon the electronic filing of
the motion. To date, no response has been filed and the time
for doing so has now expired. L.R. 7.0(c)(2). As such,
Plaintiffs' motion is unopposed. For the following
reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED.
Anderson was previously employed as a temporary worker by
Defendant Anytime Labor-Kansas, LLC. (Doc. 46 at ¶ 4.)
Defendant Anytime Labor-Kansas, LLC does business under the
name “LaborMAX Staffing.” (Id. at ¶
2.) As part of her two-page application for employment,
Defendant Anderson executed a Policy Regarding Dispute
Resolution (the “Arbitration Agreement”) which
Regarding Dispute Resolution
I agree that any disputes arising out of my employment,
including any claims of discrimination, harassment or
wrongful termination, that I believe I have against LaborMAX
Staffing and all other employment related issues (excluding
only those claims arising under the National Labor Relations
Act or otherwise within the jurisdiction of the National
Labor Relations Board) will be resolved by arbitration as my
sole remedy. The American Arbitration Association under its
Commercial Arbitration Rules shall conduct the arbitration
and the decision of the arbitration shall be final and
(Id. at ¶ 5; Doc. 46-2.)
are seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief from
the Court precluding Defendant Anderson from proceeding with
an attempted class/collective arbitration that has been filed
with the American Arbitration Association, Case No.
01-17-0003-6335 (the “Anderson Arbitration”). In
the Anderson Arbitration, Defendant Anderson is seeking to
bring claims against Plaintiffs for gender discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et
seq., and for age discrimination in violation of the
Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Mo. Rev.
Stat. § 213.010 et seq. and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29
U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (Doc. 46 at ¶ 11.)
Plaintiffs seek relief on the grounds that Defendant
Anderson's Arbitration Agreement does not permit
arbitration of claims on a class or collective basis, and as
such, the arbitrated claims must be arbitrated individually,
and not as a group, class or collective arbitration.
discussed below, the Court finds the Arbitration Agreement
only permits individual arbitration and also finds Plaintiffs
are entitled to a permanent injunction from further
prosecution of the Anderson Arbitration.
Standard of Review
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A party who moves for summary judgment
bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of
material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 256 (1986). A party opposing a motion for summary
judgment must point to evidence in the record demonstrating
the existence of a factual dispute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1);
Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, 620 F.3d 902,
909-10 (8th Cir. 2010). “If a party . . . fails to
properly address another party's assertion of fact . . .
the court may consider the fact undisputed for purposes of
the motion [or] grant summary judgment if the motion and
supporting materials - including the facts considered
undisputed - show that the movant is entitled to it[.]”
Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C.
§ 1 et seq., “declare[s] a national
policy favoring arbitration.” Nitro-Lift Techs.,
L.L.C. v. Howard, 133 S.Ct. 500, 503 (2012) (citation
omitted). The FAA states that agreements to settle a
controversy arising from a contract by arbitration
“shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, ”
unless grounds exist at law or in equity that allow for
revocation of the contract. 9 U.S.C. § 2. “When a
valid arbitration agreement undisputedly encompasses the
claim, a court must enforce the agreement according to its
terms.” Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., No.
12-00450-CV-W-BP, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189175, at *5 (W.D.
Mo. Nov. 13, 2013) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 2; Pro Tech